Repair of unilateral split: Saint Chevalier

This trope is REALLY unclear. Essentially, it is about Chivalry codes. However, for some reason, the trope was written as a Character Trope rather than being about Chivalry itself as a form of Narrative Devices. The result is that the trope reads REALLY similar to Knight in Shining Armor (whose description also emphasizes goodness chilvaric romances, etc...). The Discussion page itself includes people confused about the difference between the two.

edited 17th Mar '12 7:44:21 PM by Ghilz

The two replies to "Can someone please clarify for me what is the difference between 'Knight in Shining Armor' and 'Saint Chevalier?' I'm failing to see a difference." are both "I don't see a difference either."

Vote clarify description / difference.

Yes, error; correctly counted number of people replying but misread one of them.

edited 17th Mar '12 8:38:46 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

That is a very interesting claim, considering that there are in fact three replies on the discussion page, by two people, one of whom was arguing that there was a difference between the tropes. I can only assume that you miscounted and misread.

edited 17th Mar '12 8:21:14 PM by Catbert

I do think there's a difference. One is about a narrative device: Chivalry as a concept, and the often associated codes of conduct. The other is a stock character found in several types of stories, especially from the middle ages. The two often overlap for fairly obvious reasons, and with the way Saint Chevalier's description is worded, it blurs the difference.

The examples are also all over the place, including stuff like Qui Gon Jin of Star Wars who will disobey the Jedi council to do what he thinks is right (wouldn't that count as going against his code? Or Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right!?)

edited 17th Mar '12 8:46:15 PM by Ghilz

"Knight" generally refers to one of two kinds. One is a woman's dream man who will fight in her honor to win his lady's affection and sweep her off her feet like the warrior armed with sword, shield, and plate armor.

The other is courteous, noble, and lives by a code of chivalry like the nobleman armed with his principals. He's the good or saintly (White) chevalier (French word for Knight).

The Knight In Shining Armor page used to be mixing together chivalrous-to-the-point-of-chastity with woos-ladies-through-love-and-heroism.

Being a native french speaker, I can tell you that "Chevalier" has no more special conotation in french than "Knight" does in english. So really using the word Chevalier is just Gratuitous French. (And Saint implies a religious angle where the person has advanced Christianity and performed miracles).

Also:

Technically It has three meanings, since Knight is also a title of nobility. Like Duke or Lord or King.

About the page, the examples are also all over the place, including stuff like Qui Gon Jin of Star Wars who will disobey the Jedi council to do what he thinks is right (wouldn't that count as going against his code? Or Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right!?)

edited 17th Mar '12 8:52:58 PM by Ghilz

Qui Gon is a terrible Jedi.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Because the trope is about a specific type of character who has BOTH traits. Think the Knights of the Round Table, and other knights from old medieval-ish tales.

edited 17th Mar '12 8:55:18 PM by Ghilz

A character with both traits sounds bipolar to me. I want you to be with me (wooing)/ Stay away from me (chaste).

edited 17th Mar '12 9:03:44 PM by atheywa

If Chastity makes a Saint Chevalier, why do most of the examples of the page have/had love interests? Only shows how broken the page is if Chastity is supposed to factor into this and yet the page include "Chaste" figures who had lovers, wives, affaits, and even kids.

edited 17th Mar '12 9:09:44 PM by Ghilz

Chastity isn't a requirement but this man is too honorable to fight for the woman he loves.

Like the noble Leopold from Kate And Leopold vs the passionate William Thatcher from A Knights Tale.

edited 17th Mar '12 9:27:27 PM by atheywa

Which again, many of the examples aren't.

• Qui Gon Jin: Had a girlfriend who was also a jedi. Which is in fact a violation of his Jedi Code, which really only makes his being an example all the more puzzling. Went on a rescue mission for her. Momentarily went Dark Side for herspoiler
  When she died
  .
• Harvey Dent, engaged to Rachel Dawes*
  Her death makes him go crazy and kill people. Also fought for her as he gets kidnapped trying to save her
  .
• Arthur and most of the knights of the round table: Lancelot is an Adulterer and is legendary for his questing for said adultery with a married woman, Gawain is known for his popularity with the ladies and in fact called "Defender of Women"... (and let's got get in Arthur).
• Simon Templar: Has a Girlfriend. Also he's a thief which even if he's a Gentleman Thief this raises questions about the whole honorable thing when you make a living stealing stuff that belongs to other people...

EDIT: Article never went to YKTTW... That explains a few things.

edited 17th Mar '12 9:43:21 PM by Ghilz

Actually, chaste wooing is a staple of Courtly Love and the origin of the character type of Knight In Shining Armour so splitting the two makes little sense. The traditional archetype is both at the same time. So that's a terrible basis to split the trope on as it carries over to a large number of modern interpretations.

Everything you've listed is all ready covered by Knight In Shining Armour. If that's what this trope is supposed to be, it's just a duplicate.

edited 17th Mar '12 10:10:11 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Pretty much

Thanks for the Pothole to Courtly Love. I drew a blank and I just couldn't remember what it was called.

BTW Shima, hrrrm, who is "you" ?

edited 17th Mar '12 10:11:38 PM by Ghilz

Leopold is a solider but a nobleman, honest about the fact that he is from 1876. Contrasted from Will who wants to be a knight so bad that he will lie about the fact that he is actually a peasant.

• Qui-Gon didn't have a girlfriend in the movie. He was a knight doing what he knew was right.

• There wasn't anything making it dishonorable for Harvey to be with Rachel and he stopped being Gothem's white knight when he went crazy.

• When Arthur refuses to stand in the way of Lancelot and Guinevere's love, he's the more honorable one (too honorable since she's his wife).

• Simon Templar: Never heard of him.

You = atheywa. Picking and choosing character quirks of the same archetype that are unrelated to the core trope makes as much sense as splitting by hair colour.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Might be an aside but... How is that even relevant? It's not like he could lie when he's been thrown over 120 year in the future from his own time and say he isn't from 1876. Well I guess he could and instead pass of an idiot ignorant of even basic things rather than passing for an eccentric or a liar. I mean point is people will think he's crazy eitherway, so it's not like he has a reason to lie.

Yet you're the one who added him to the page on 24th Dec '11 12:07:17! o_O

edited 17th Mar '12 10:33:44 PM by Ghilz

It seems to me that an important part of the definition of our Knight in Shining Armor trope is that it's a literal knight; a guy with a sword in plate armor riding a horse and doing heroic things like you expect from a Chivalric Romance.

Saint Chevalier, on the other hand, seems to be written with a much more figurative meaning of "knight" in mind, more specifically referring to the abstract concept of "chivalry" in matters of love. (It could be much clearer on that point, however.)

There seems to be some confusion in the example section about whether the trope is about literal or figurative knights; there are examples where the trope is obviously interpreted as merely a literal "noble knight", in other words, a Knight in Shining Armor. For example:

There's no reference to a code of chivalry, or self-chosen chastity (and as we know, neither King Arthur nor Lancelot were 'chaste'.)

edited 18th Mar '12 3:01:06 PM by LordGro

Let's just say and leave it at that.

Honestly I am not even sure my OP is accurate anymore atheywa's posts now kind have convinced me the trope's not even about chivalry and associated codes (Do we have a trope for that? Coz I should YKTWW that). What with the emphasis on Chastity and all.

I think it's this: Knight in Shining Armor is about literal Knights In Shining Armor; Saint Chevalier is (by its original intent) about figurative Knights In Shining Armor.

Let's just say and leave it at that.

Knight in Shining Armor never was limited to literal knights though. At least not in its original form. And frankly, I don't think it's really much a split worth making if both characters exhibit the same personality traits.

Especially as that doesn't seem to be born out by the examples on either trope. Most of Saint Chevalier was originally on Knight In Shining Armour and was arbitrarily deleted despite being the trope.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Well, then Knight in Shining Armor needs a TRS.

edited 18th Mar '12 8:42:03 AM by LordGro

Let's just say and leave it at that.

Not if we merge all this back into Knight in Shining Armor and cut this. Which I am more and more in favor of.

Yes, because I am quite frankly under the impression that Knight in Shining Armor is about literal knights, was written to be about literal knights, and that almost all the examples are about literal knights.

Let's just say and leave it at that.